Waste Mgmt. of La., L. L.C. v. River Birch, Inc.

Fifth Circuit

Waste Mgmt. of La., L. L.C. v. River Birch, Inc.

927 F.3d 914

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 28, 2019

DocketNo. 18-30139

StatusPublished

This text of 927 F.3d 914 (Waste Mgmt. of La., L. L.C. v. River Birch, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Waste Mgmt. of La., L. L.C. v. River Birch, Inc., 927 F.3d 914 (5th Cir. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Treating the Petition for Rehearing En Banc as a Petition for Panel Rehearing, we note that Defendants did not cite or rely on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986), in the district court or to the panel. We therefore decline to consider that case now. Both the majority and the dissent agree that the issue in this case is factual, more particularly, what inferences can or will be drawn by the jury from the evidence.

The majority continues to adhere to its view that fact issues are presented that preclude summary judgment. The dissent disagrees and would affirm the district court. The petition for panel rehearing is therefore DENIED . Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

No member of the panel nor judge in regular active service of the court¹ having requested that the court be polled on Rehearing En Banc (FED. R. APP. P. and 5TH CIR. R. 35 ), the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Treating the Petition for Rehearing En Banc as a Petition for Panel Rehearing, we note that Defendants did not cite or rely on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986), in the district court or to the panel. We therefore decline to consider that case now. Both the majority and the dissent agree that the issue in this case is factual, more particularly, what inferences can or will be drawn by the jury from the evidence.

The majority continues to adhere to its view that fact issues are presented that preclude summary judgment. The dissent disagrees and would affirm the district court. The petition for panel rehearing is therefore DENIED . Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

No member of the panel nor judge in regular active service of the court¹ having requested that the court be polled on Rehearing En Banc (FED. R. APP. P. and 5TH CIR. R. 35 ), the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

927 F.3d 914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waste-mgmt-of-la-l-lc-v-river-birch-inc-ca5-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack